From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 1/5] PM / Runtime: Allow accessing irq_safe if no PM_RUNTIME
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 00:45:52 +0100
Message-ID: <7655201.9JqC82S5EB@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.16.0-rc5+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1411070948180.1214-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1411070948180.1214-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Friday, November 07, 2014 09:50:58 AM Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> > > Well, that is a good reason to introduce a wrapper around power.irq_safe in my
> > > view.
> > > 
> > > And define the wrapper so that it always returns false for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME
> > > unset.
> > > 
> > > This way not only you wouldn't need to move the flag from under the #ifdef,
> > > but also you would make the compiler skip the relevant pieces of code
> > > entiretly for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME unset.
> > 
> > Few days ago I would be happy with your opinion :), but know I think
> > this is better solution than wrapper. Consider case:
> > 1. PM_RUNTIME unset.
> > 2. System suspends.
> > 3. The pl330 in its suspend callback calls force_runtime_suspend which
> > leads us to amba/bus.
> > 4. The amba/bus.c in runtime suspend checks for irq_safe (it is FALSE),
> > so it disables and unprepares the clock.
> > 5. The pl330 in probe requested irq_safe so it assumes amba/bus will
> > only disable the clock. So the pl330 unprepares the clock. Again.
> 
> To me, this sounds like a good reason to avoid using 
> force_runtime_suspend().  In fact, it sounds like a good reason to 
> avoid relying on the runtime PM mechanism to handle non-runtime-PM 
> things (like a system suspend callback).  If CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME isn't 
> enabled then the runtime PM stack simply should not be used.

Amen.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/